Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream (Read 2194 times)

Rich_

posted: 10/9/2008 at 3:41 PMmodified: 10/9/2008 at 3:42 PM

Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream
Almost 10 years ago I first advanced the idea that endurance performance is primarily about power output and that muscle contractility is the dominant factor in endurance performance.
This “power running” theory was very contradictory to the long accepted cardiovascular/anaerobic model of endurance performance. A review of the mainstream running publications available at that time revealed that only one person – Dr. Tim Noakes’ in his book Lore of Running – was even suggesting that the cardiovascular/anaerobic model might not be correct. Every other source touted VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy (the 3 pillars of the cardiovascular/anaerobic model) as the primary determinants of endurance performance.
When I first presented my physiological & training theories to the running community via the internet, they and I were generally attacked by the more vocal members. The theory that muscles, and not the cardiovascular system, determine performance was rejected by most as the ravings of a mad man (or at least one who didn’t grasp basic physiology).
Undeterred by the personal attacks, I persisted in sharing the “power running” theory and, more importantly, the significantly large body of research and empirical data supporting it.
In recent years an increasing number of research studies have cast doubt on the validity of the cardiovascular/anaerobic model. So much so that a growing number of writers, coaches, runners, and physiologists have begun to openly question the validity of the cardiovascular/anaerobic model and Dr. Noakes has gone from being a heretic and iconoclast in the physiology community to one of its leading members.
Today, the cardiovascular/anaerobic model is no longer the end-all, be-all theory it was 20 years ago. This 100 year old theory appears to be on its last legs, soon to be replaced by some other theory (probably Noakes’ Central Governor model).
What about the power running “muscles determine performance” theory? This theory has advanced from the oft-ridiculed idea of basically just one man to being presented in a mainstream running publication in 2008 as a valid, accurate theory. The new book Run Faster – from the 5K to the Marathon by Brad Hudson and Matt Fitzgerald presents as fact many of the physiological tenets of the Power Running theory.
It’s a bold new world out there. Let’s have a look at it in more detail.

Undeterred by the personal attacks, I persisted in sharing the “power running” theory and, more importantly, the significantly large body of research and empirical data supporting it.

Sigh.
Rich, against my own better judgment - since I'll bet you'll make me regret it - here's some friendly advice:
Quit sharing your "theories." Try sharing YOU.
If you have strange, new, wonderful ideas about running - GREAT. But nobody is going to want to hear them from some stranger who doesn't have any interaction with the community, no profile, no log, makes no mention of their own running, and doesn't share the first thing about themselves.
If you're actually sincere, stop with the two thousand word screeds (and this is from a master of the two thousand word screed). Start talking about you. Share your experience. Tell us how your training is going. Join in some conversations.
And then ... after you've been here a few weeks or months or years ... trying bring up your ideas again. In the context of your OWN training ... as in ... "Hey, this has been working for me."
Believe it or not, there are other runners here who are coaches and trainers, who are, to some extent, hyping their own websites or programs or techniques. But ALL of them are also real members of the community - so nobody minds when they decide to post an article. (Of course, the fact that they share their training, and happen to be two and half hour marathoners, probably helps ...)
If you try it, you'll find this place is extraordinarily warm and accepting. There will be no personal attacks, and if your ideas have any merit at all, people will discuss them with you.
Even if they're loony, people will have interest. After all, they're actually talking Chi/Pose in another thread, and so far nobody's been lynched. If that's possible, anything is.
So what'd you say? Wanna drop the weird running board stalker shtick ... and actually join us?
We don't bite. Unless you ask nicely and take us to dinner first.

E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------

obsessor

posted: 10/9/2008 at 4:47 PM

I don't care what one's theory is, (there are 400 miniature gremlins crawing around under my skin and they get freakin ANGRY if I don't run a lot, and sometimes fast) I mean really truly, does it matter how much I know about ATP and ADP and all that jazz? but if it results in training methods that differ substantially from the vast cloud of data and anecdote that I will refer to as "training that works" ... then it's no good. Training that works, for improving long distance running (for the VAST majority of runners of all skill levels, ages, sex, etc... )
Training that works.
Run a bunch of miles.
Run some hills.
Run at various paces, various surfaces.
Allow yourself adequate recovery.
Run sometimes long.
Run sometimes very fast.
Improvement takes time.
if it differs from that too much, it's not right.

Sigh.
Rich, against my own better judgment - since I'll bet you'll make me regret it - here's some friendly advice:
Quit sharing your "theories." Try sharing YOU.
If you have strange, new, wonderful ideas about running - GREAT. But nobody is going to want to hear them from some stranger who doesn't have any interaction with the community, no profile, no log, makes no mention of their own running, and doesn't share the first thing about themselves.
If you're actually sincere, stop with the two thousand word screeds (and this is from a master of the two thousand word screed). Start talking about you. Share your experience. Tell us how your training is going. Join in some conversations.
And then ... after you've been here a few weeks or months or years ... trying bring up your ideas again. In the context of your OWN training ... as in ... "Hey, this has been working for me."

Jake,
Thank you for the advice. I really do appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion with me.
Based on your comment "since I'll bet you'll make me regret it" it appears if I don't fully accept your advice or if I have a different opinion on this matter, then I just shouldn't respond or else you will regret posting.
So, I'll just leave it at "thanks".

Here are some specifics from Run Faster.
"As important as it is, the aerobic system is only one of two major physiological factors in the running performance equation. The neuromuscular system is the other major factor. Neuromuscular fitness, which manifests itself as stride power, stride efficiency, and fatigue resistance, affects performance as much as aerobic fitness does."
"In the 1960s, when the concept of aerobic capacity was developed and VO2max measurement techniques were refined, exercise scientists and running coaches got a little too exited about the whole thing and started treating oxygen consumption as the be-all and end-all of running performance. This bias led to the creation and widespread use of training practices that were designed to increase VO2max as much as possible."
"I believe that runners should train to maximize running performance itself, which requires that they train to develop both aerobic and neuromuscular fitness in the proper balance needed to produce specific endurance for their goal event (or the ability to sustain their goal race pace over the full race distance)."
Very interesting indeed.

Swell, Rich. You proved your detractors right in your very first post.
Apparently the reputation that precedes you everywhere you go ... is unfortunately accurate.
At least you gave me a chuckle. Did you even notice the irony in the fact that while you apparently love giving giant mountains of unsolicited advice, you really, really don't like it much yourself, do you?
Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question, meant to amuse the inmates. Who already noticed the irony anyway.
Carry on. We've missed Hefty. You can be our new Hefty. But less amusing.

Jake, nice avatar caption.
Oh, to make it relevant to this thread & meta-thread, that avatar caption is four words, accompanying a picture. 4:1 ratio of words to pictures. That's a good ratio for us ADD people. Better than, say, 19240872487 words to no pictures.